侵犯商业秘密罪“重大损失”之辩护及释法完善

On the Defense of"Great Loss"in Crime of Infringing upon Trade Secret and Its Judicial Interpretation Reform

2020年6月,全国人大公布的《中华人民共和国刑法修正案(十一)(草案)》,拟就我国《刑法》第219条侵犯商业秘密罪取消“重大损失”要素,修改为情节犯。这一修法动议可能是履行2020年1月签署的《中华人民共和国政府和美利坚合众国政府经济贸易协议》规定的商业秘密刑法保护义务的应对表现。考察该协议中英文本可以发现,“取消义务”仅涉及我国启动刑事调查时应取消“商业秘密权利人证实实际损失”的条件,与“重大损失”的入罪门槛无涉;“列入义务”仅涉及入罪行为类型的范围设定,也未涉及是否设定“定量”的入罪门槛。相反,现阶段我国保留“重大损失”的入罪门槛地位仍具有合理性。我国履约宜采取“释法优于修法”的策略,重新认识商业秘密致损机制和设计其定损机制,来解决“获取型”侵犯商业秘密行为入罪不能的问题。

The AmendmentⅪto PRC Criminal Law(Draft)published on the official website of the Chinese People's Congress in June 2020 eliminates the element of"great loss"in the crime of infringing upon trade secret stipulated in Art.219 of PRC Criminal Law and turns it into an offense with"certain circumstances".Such legislative draft may be a response for fulfilling the conventional obligation on criminal protection of trade secret under the Sino-US Economic and Trade Agreement signed in January 2020.A close observation of both the Chinese and English versions of the Agreement shows that the"elimination obligation"only involves the elimination of the condition that the holder of a trade secret proves the actual loss in the initiation of a criminal investigation in China,which is not related to the"great loss"as the threshold of constituting a crime,and the"inclusion obligation"only involves the scope setting of criminalized behavior categories,which is not related to the issue of criminalization threshold that whether the quantity is required.On the contrary,the maintenance of"great loss"as a threshold at present stage seems still reasonable.To fulfill its conventional obligation,China shall adopt the strategy of"judicial interpretation prior to legislative revision",re-understand the trade secret damage-producing mechanism and re-devise the damage-assessing mechanism,to solve the problem of failure to criminally punish the pure"acquisition"of trade secret.